Seòmar agus comataidhean

The goats themselves are not feral—they are wild goats, which is why they are so unique. Their uniqueness is that they have been here for centuries. According to the conservation group, those British primitive goats are descended from goats that were brought to the British Isles by neolithic herdspeople more than 4,000 years ago. They are unique.

That is why this is so important. The conservation group is not against ensuring that older goats be controlled, because they must be. That is just the nature of things since the land sale has happened—Ms Villalba will be aware that Oxygen Conservation purchased some of the land, and Richard Stockdale has been making comments to that effect on some of Ms Villalba’s amendments. The conservation group is not against the control of goats, because they must be controlled, but it is supportive of the right method. My amendments would just give those goats a protected status, which would not have an impact on their control.

Moreover, other options exist to protect the habitat of the goat in relation to the regulation-making powers that the Scottish ministers could have. The cabinet secretary has options here, and I am sure that she will give us her opinion on how the three amendments that would ensure protection could be made possible.

That is irrelevant to my point. I am making the point that 4,000 jobs are reliant on game shooting in Scotland—

When I spoke to members of the Wild Goat Conservation Trust, they explained that, although schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not include any non-native species, it was carefully worded so as not to preclude the possibility of doing so. In describing the animals and plants listed in the protecting provisions, the 1981 act uses the terms “principally” and “in general” in respect of those being indigenous to the UK. It is therefore entirely possible to use schedule 5 to refer to the goats as being “principally” and “in general” indigenous to the UK.

My short answer is that the Langholm and Newcastleton goats are non-native, as you have said. As such, they would be able to be listed in schedule 5. The conservation group and I have looked at the amendments carefully because I had lodged amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but they were not agreed to. We have looked at the issue intensely to work out how to get the amendments through to offer protection or to give the cabinet secretary or the ministers regulation-making powers to designate certain sites.

It is not about not controlling the goats but about ensuring that they are protected so that they are not indiscriminately wiped out as 85 per cent of the goat herd was, as I have stated. I hope that that answers the member’s question.

Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels, the red squirrel conservation group, pointed out that, at present, its members are voluntarily going out to trap grey squirrels and humanely dispatch them to ensure that we control the spread of the squirrel pox virus. The virus is becoming a serious problem in the south of Scotland. I cannot remember the last time that I saw a red squirrel in the region; only small defined areas still provide a habitat for red squirrels without the presence of the grey squirrel population that is seriously wiping them out. The conservation group’s key point was that the situation is now getting to the stage at which it needs support to enable it to continue the good work that it has already been doing voluntarily.

If we are serious about preserving biodiversity and species that are native to Scotland, we really need to look at resources. That does not mean to say that I have to change my amendments or make reference to the financial memorandum because the proposal would cost a lot of money—it is simply about bringing in NatureScot to support local authorities to make an assessment. It is more about the assessment, and local authorities already have the ability to do that. For example, they have officers who go out to look at situations involving seagulls. That has happened in Eyemouth, in my region—there was a designated individual who worked alongside NatureScot.

I thank the member for her intervention, but I do not see what would be required as being onerous or creating a huge financial burden.

To go back to the amendments, I have one comment on Jim Fairlie’s amendment 35. My final amendment in the group—amendment 35A—seeks to amend the minister’s amendment by deleting lines 11 and 12. Currently, the applicant for the licence will specify the land to which the application relates, and lines 11 and 12 of the minister’s amendment allow NatureScot to propose a different area to which the licence should relate.

I have lodged my amendment 35A because I believe that Jim Fairlie’s amendment is wrong. As my amendments recognise, the Scottish Government has already said that it will not amend the muirburn licensing scheme that was established in the 2024 act, so how can it justify amending the licences that come under section 16AA of the 1981 act?

Article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights, on the protection of property, means that a public authority cannot place restrictions on anyone’s property without very good reason. If the minister’s amendment were to be agreed to and NatureScot imposed a licence on someone’s entire property, is the Government content that that would not breach protocol 1? Perhaps the cabinet secretary can address that concern.

The minister’s amendment could also mean that an entire landholding would be subject to the extension of licences to cover the whole landholding. That was already considered in the debate on the bill that became the 2024 act. When the licences took effect, NatureScot unilaterally deviated from the 2024 act, defining “land” as the entire landholding. NatureScot—this is important—later recognised that that was an error in law, after a leading King’s counsel deemed the decision ultra vires. NatureScot then realigned the application process so that it was within the law.

There are deterrents in place to avoid illegal shooting to ensure the effective deterrence of raptor crime, and NatureScot included a new condition to ensure that licences can be revoked if relevant crimes are being committed by relevant people outside the land to which the licence itself relates.

Finally, in August 2025, NatureScot told the BBC:

“We haven’t seen raptor persecution where we have had to act in the case of grouse moor licensing, which is good, but we continue that monitoring and compliance arrangement with Police Scotland and others to make sure that that is the case.”

I strongly oppose amendment 55, amendment 40—which Lorna Slater said that she was not going to move anyway—and the amendment in the name of Beatrice Wishart.

With regard to the last of those, I do not think that it is reasonable that NatureScot would monitor and assess the issue where land managers are already doing so. It is completely unnecessary, and slightly worrying.

Beatrice Wishart talked about control of disease. Land managers already look at implications, and it is important to note that there is currently a kept bird register, along with robust avian influenza protection orders. There is no evidence that those diseases are transmitted between game birds. I therefore do not see that Beatrice Wishart’s amendment is relevant.

I was going to intervene on Mercedes Villalba, but I missed the chance to do so. I think that her amendments would have an impact on the survival of songbirds, because the land is currently being managed by land managers who are operating game shoots. Game shooting is worth a huge amount—£760 million—to the Scottish economy, and many jobs in the rural economy are reliant on it.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Would the cabinet secretary consider meeting the red squirrel group? I think that the speaking notes from which she has just read actually undermine—

You are being very generous, as Jim Fairlie is not here to defend his amendments.

I am sufficiently concerned to reiterate what the Government originally said when the committee—I was a member of it at the time—took through the muirburn and grouse moor licensing provisions. It is on record that, at that point, the Scottish Government said that it would not amend the section 16AA licence, as set out in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. Jim Fairlie is not here to give an explanation. To quote the cabinet secretary, she said that she is here to do the job of Jim Fairlie—but just to read the notes and not respond to the concerns—[Interruption.] No, I am being hugely respectful, cabinet secretary.

I am looking at the notes that I used earlier when I spoke to Jim Fairlie’s amendment 35 to extend the provisions to the entire landholding. The cabinet secretary said that that is to close a loophole. NatureScot already did that, but, as I said, a KC had deemed its decision to be ultra vires. What is the Scottish Government’s position on the legality of doing that in the amendment?

Cabinet secretary, I am seriously worried that the amendment will be agreed to today, because the vote on the amendment will be whipped.